Is illegal immgration crackdown a cure-all?

From the looks of some of the discussion happening on Carpentersville news threads around the web, it seems that the call to “leave the Humpfer situation to the courts, and get back to Village business” means “let’s get back to talking about illegal immigration”.

Anti-illegal immigration activists cited that the reason Paul Humpfer was been maligned had nothing to do with his domestic battery convictions, but rather his stance on illegal immigration. After telling those who thought Humpfer’s conviction for domestic battery made him ineligible to hold office to “get back to Village business”, the focus of discussions returned to illegal immigration actions.

For 2 years, public comment at Village Board meetings has mostly involved illegal immigration and comments critical of members of the Board, most especially President Bill Sarto and Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski. (Lack of ideas presented on the recent “discussion thread” regarding improvements for the Village seem to mirror the general lack of ideas presented at Board meetings.)

However … is illegal immigration really the panacea for Carpentersville that it is being made out to be? Is illegal immigration really the most important issue facing the Village? And, if not, then why is such talk dominating everything?

I would say that those who continue to raise the issue of illegal immigration are doing so because of a genuine lack of anything substantially positive to offer the residents of Carpentersville.

Tonight’s Board meeting preview

Looking at tonight’s Village Board meeting agenda …

Ordinance Amending the Carpentersville Municipal Code, Title 10, “Vehicles and Traffic” Providing Regulations for the Seizure and Impoundment of Motor Vehicles

As I understand it, the proposed amendment would add a $250 administrative fee for the return of any impounded vehicle. Otherwise, there appears to basically be no changes to when police would tow a vehicle.

Reports in recent weeks, and even as recently as today, led me to believe that the Village would be expanding the towing situations. That does not appear to be the case, however.

In light of that, I don’t really see a problem with adding the administrative fee. It is quite correct that other municipalities have enacted similar ordinances, but they have not expanded towing to cover situations that are not part of present ordinance and law. Waukegan did try, but it resulted in an illegal seizure lawsuit that was found in favor of the plaintiff — though being appealed.

I still don’t like the another item that’s on the agenda, involving the “Improvement Committee”. While work continues to be done on this front by Village staff, driving around the Village one sees improvement and better code compliance. And, the details of how this “committee” would work are unclear, as is any necessary oversight. It’s just a bad idea.

Other items are pretty innocuous and routine.